Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

You go deeper than me.
Sorry, I will not accompany you for it is within my realm of interest.
But, for you...good investigation...!!!

I needed to go deeper because in that area, my own faith was shaken. We are not all the same kind of sheep. Yet, Jesus the Good Shepherd loves each of us beyond that which can be scientifically imagined.

I have read some painful posts of Catholics who were not sure how to react to the loud voices of interpreters of scientific research. That is why I try to demonstrate that science has a place in our world, but it is a limited place. While the OP post is very short, it represents the concerns of many people. The Australian article points out how some people are trying to deal with science. In my humble opinion, there is a *both ...and*. We need to both respect science and follow the sound teachings of Catholicism.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Oh! I got it faster than I thought.
So. first point I agree.
Not the second one. That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God's Grace.
My view.

Here you go deeper than me. Thank you.

As I study your words, I have this idea to share with you. I have often heard the concept that the story about Adam is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world. Cardinal Pell is not original with that reasoning.

Yes, there is a need to understand evil and suffering. The Cardinal is correct in that suffering human death is tied to Adam. However, according to the ancient teachings of Catholicism, death, which is real, is tied to the real action of the first real human. The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man." (Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1 .footnote 293 for paragraph 404 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm

It is my observation that it is important to understand Adam both before his action and afterwards.

Your words from post 360 -- "That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God's Grace." -- This is what people should focus on, especially in our current world.

[grannymh]

As I am working through various issues involving the reality of two first parents known biblically as Adam and Eve..........

I wonder how a Catholic comes to the conclusion that scientific research is the ultimate authority regarding the origin of human nature.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I needed to go deeper because in that area, my own faith was shaken. We are not all the same kind of sheep. Yet, Jesus the Good Shepherd loves each of us beyond that which can be scientifically imagined.

I have read some painful posts of Catholics who were not sure how to react to the loud voices of interpreters of scientific research. That is why I try to demonstrate that science has a place in our world, but it is a limited place. While the OP post is very short, it represents the concerns of many people. The Australian article points out how some people are trying to deal with science. In my humble opinion, there is a *both ...and*. We need to both respect science and follow the sound teachings of Catholicism.

Look. I respect science. My Father was a doctor and my eldest too. With My Father I learnt to see God in every bit and piece of science. My Father had a friend who was totally atheist. They remained good friends till death. When they were at Medical School, in the point where My Father found the proof of God, my Father's friend found a proof that God did not exist.
My Father was a person with humor. Once, we were eating an egg and he said: Look, Son, this is the best proof of the existence of God!". Where are the feathers, the bones, the meat of the chick that would be born in this egg hatched for 28 days! And on and on. Once we were in the top of a building and seeing all those old antenas for TV. And he said: "Some people say that God cannot be everywhere! Look, Son, the TV image is everywhere!" I watched him with wonder. And...I miss him...
So, I learnt you cannot prove anything to an atheist by studying science. You find 1000 proofs of the existence of God and he finds 1001 proofs of the non-existence of God.
You see God because you have got a pair of colored lens different from the pair of lenses of the atheist. And both refuse to exchange lens. So one sees it white and the other sees it black.
I defend that: 1) God created everything; 2) God created the individual Human Soul or Spirit or "I" or "me".
Now, if the Body came from outer spacy in a galaxy vehicle at the speed of light and parachuted into EArth or whether it came from snails or whales, I could not care less. I find it ... funny. It is so complex that I do not go over there..

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Here you go deeper than me. Thank you.

As I study your words, I have this idea to share with you. I have often heard the concept that the story about Adam is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world. Cardinal Pell is not original with that reasoning.

Yes, there is a need to understand evil and suffering. The Cardinal is correct in that suffering human death is tied to Adam. However, according to the ancient teachings of Catholicism, death, which is real, is tied to the real action of the first real human. The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man." (Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1 .footnote 293 for paragraph 404 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm

It is my observation that it is important to understand Adam both before his action and afterwards.

Your words from post 360 -- "That happiness and that lovely Garden of Eve means something else. That Man was not intended for sin. That God was intended for happiness and to obey God and to be pure and to be in God's Grace." -- This is what people should focus on, especially in our current world.

The Bible is a Faith Book, so teaches us Faith.
Obviously, the writers of the Bible, of the Pentateuch, the first books of the Bible, they were not scientists, clear as water...
But they were inspired by God.
And they told us very important things. Not in a scientific form, which is boring, but is the shape of a midrash. Midrash in the Jewish tradition is a tale with a meaning. I never use the term myth for it is greek and confused with the greek gods.
So, inspired by God, they said wonderful things:
1. They said that it is not natural the state of suffering and sin in man. So, as they relized that sometimes the evil of parents passes on to children (a drunk mother produces crazy sons) they started to think that my evil came from my father from his father from his father...so the first evil must have come from somebody whom they gave the name of Adam. Of course it was written by Man so they could not accept that the first eveilcame from the Male. It came, obviously, from the female, the eternal temptrice. The woman, the evil of all
2. An so, they realized that SIN and DEATH was not natural. And they said: "Oh! Before it was not like that!" . We suffer from sin. And isn't it true? Protitution, murders, adultery and so on, all produce suffering. Of course, there is a remaining suffering that we do not know where it comes, as seen in the Book of Job and in the cross of Jesus.
3. They concluded that some sin is not our fault. The son of thieves is a thief. He learnt it that way. Not his fault.
4. But there are sins that are our fault. Adam and Eve sinned through our fault...

This told in the Yahwist and Elohist Tradition (if you are not familiar it is worth investigating the 4 traditions of the Pentateuch, moreth Deuteronomist and the ??? Priesthood ????.

Wonderful.

Now, discussin science with people who wrote the Pentaeuch in 1500 aC???? Not fair !!!

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

The Bible is a Faith Book, so teaches us Faith.
Obviously, the writers of the Bible, of the Pentateuch, the first books of the Bible, they were not scientists, clear as water...
But they were inspired by God.
And they told us very important things. Not in a scientific form, which is boring, but is the shape of a midrash. Midrash in the Jewish tradition is a tale with a meaning. I never use the term myth for it is greek and confused with the greek gods.
So, inspired by God, they said wonderful things:
1. They said that it is not natural the state of suffering and sin in man. So, as they relized that sometimes the evil of parents passes on to children (a drunk mother produces crazy sons) they started to think that my evil came from my father from his father from his father...so the first evil must have come from somebody whom they gave the name of Adam. Of course it was written by Man so they could not accept that the first eveilcame from the Male. It came, obviously, from the female, the eternal temptrice. The woman, the evil of all
2. An so, they realized that SIN and DEATH was not natural. And they said: "Oh! Before it was not like that!" . We suffer from sin. And isn't it true? Protitution, murders, adultery and so on, all produce suffering. Of course, there is a remaining suffering that we do not know where it comes, as seen in the Book of Job and in the cross of Jesus.
3. They concluded that some sin is not our fault. The son of thieves is a thief. He learnt it that way. Not his fault.
4. But there are sins that are our fault. Adam and Eve sinned through our fault...

This told in the Yahwist and Elohist Tradition (if you are not familiar it is worth investigating the 4 traditions of the Pentateuch, moreth Deuteronomist and the ??? Priesthood ????.

Wonderful.

Now, discussin science with people who wrote the Pentaeuch in 1500 aC???? Not fair !!!

One question for anyone

How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by grannymh

One question for anyone

How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

"The final redactor explain Catholic doctrines?" You mean 500 years before Jesus was born? And none of the many hands that worked on the Scripture would have been explaining anything. That's not what redacting is. That's what commentaries are for. There were a lot of commentaries. They aren't Scripture. The CCC is a commentary, essentially.

So, I am very confused about what you are asking, exactly.

The first 13 chapters of Genesis comprise the traditions of the northern and southern kingdoms, which were theoretically combined during the last Babylonian exile.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

"The final redactor explain Catholic doctrines?" You mean 500 years before Jesus was born? And none of the many hands that worked on the Scripture would have been explaining anything. That's not what redacting is. That's what commentaries are for. There were a lot of commentaries. They aren't Scripture. The CCC is a commentary, essentially.

So, I am very confused about what you are asking, exactly.

The first 13 chapters of Genesis comprise the traditions of the northern and southern kingdoms, which were theoretically combined during the last Babylonian exile.

To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

As for the final redactor, I use the commentary on the Book of Genesis, Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible. It says -- "Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) sources, which in turn reflect older oral traditions (see Introduction to the Pentateuch)". The commentary (introduction) to the Pentateuch included the Deuteronomic (D) strand. Apparently the "redactor(s) were the hands-on people who put together the text. However, they did it, their job was to present the truth of Divine Revelation. It is the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis which became Catholic Doctrines.

Maybe it would be less confusing if I had asked how did the final redactor explain Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis?

On the other hand, it became the job of the Catholic Church to both teach and protect Divine Revelation as Catholic doctrines, also known as the Catholic Deposit of Faith. A good example is St. Paul in his letter to the Romans, Chapter five. Given the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth, I will keep my original question as is.

From post 366. The question for anyone remains.
"How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?"

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by grannymh

To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

As for the final redactor, I use the commentary on the Book of Genesis, Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible. It says -- "Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) sources, which in turn reflect older oral traditions (see Introduction to the Pentateuch)".

The reference to the "final redactor" does not refer to a literal single person. Neither does the "Yawist" or "Eloist." These are just scholarly conventions which come from the style of writing from the two Hebrew subcultures. Your question, therefore, taken literally has only one answer:

From post 366. The question for anyone remains.
"How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?"

Obviously, they didn't.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

The reference to the "final redactor" does not refer to a literal single person. Neither does the "Yawist" or "Eloist." These are just scholarly conventions which come from the style of writing from the two Hebrew subcultures. Your question, therefore, taken literally has only one answer:

***********************
From post 366. The question for anyone remains.
"How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?"

***********************
Obviously, they didn't.

Thank you for your input. I continue to learn from your various insights.

Nonetheless, since my question involves some interesting Catholic doctrines and interesting comments from the Australian article linked by the OP, I am sure that there could be another way to answer the question.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

One question for anyone

How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

I think that the final redactor, I think it was a compiler, had a culture very different from ours. He interpreted literally the first 5 Books of Pentateuch.
I do not think he had a clue about the coming of Jesus Christ.
He talked through the words of God, not knowing the full extension of what he was saying.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I think that the final redactor, I think it was a compiler, had a culture very different from ours. He interpreted literally the first 5 Books of Pentateuch.
I do not think he had a clue about the coming of Jesus Christ.
He talked through the words of God, not knowing the full extension of what he was saying.

If I may repeat what I have said -- To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

Because of the Midrash, -- am I using this word correctly -- the final redactor(s) needed to preserve God's message for future generations. One of the messages given to the first man Adam is found in Genesis 3: 9-15. After Adam had broken his relationship with God, he was not abandoned by God. God calls out to Adam, asking him where he is since he left God's protective side. With the inspiration of God, the redactor chose to explain this particular situation from Adam's point of view and thus, since we are Adam's descendents, from our point of view. Genesis 3: 6-8.

Sin is our choice to move away from God, to hide from God because we recognize our own sinfulness (nakedness indicating that the relationship between Adam and God was not there). Yet, God continues to seek us.

Within the passage of Genesis 3: 9-15 is one of the main Catholic doctrines which is that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is promised as the One Who will repair the damaged relationship between God and man. It is known as the Protoevangelium, the "first gospel" in that it announces the Messiah and Redeemer.
I will agree with you that the writer of that passage would not have known the full extent of Christ's salvific mission. What the writer did know was that Adam's descendents had retained the gist or meaning of God's conversation with Adam that took place after Adam's Original Sin. At the same time that God explained the basic effects of that first sin, God promised Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ began to preach, the listeners remembered the first three chapters of Genesis and "the dots were connected." St. Paul proclaims the connection of Jesus Christ with the first man Adam in Romans, Chapter five.

Yes, some of Adam's descendents as they migrated did lose the message of God and consequently invented their own supernatural explanations of life's meanings. Nonetheless, they remained religious beings in that they had an inherent sensitivity of the supernatural. We call the "sensitivity" our spiritual soul directly created by God.

My question asked how did the redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He did it through God words to a real person. Only his explanation was not the complete explanation. It remained for God to reveal Himself slowly through the Old Testament prophets because man's mind is not equal with God. With the Incarnation, the Divine Revelation which began with Adam is completed in Jesus Christ.

Another Catholic doctrine is that God is a personal God Who calls each of us to share in His life though knowledge and love. The redactor(s) explained this by example. Notice the shift from the first verses in chapter one which describe God's actions. In verse 28, God starts talking personally to Adam and Eve. This verse does not contain all the Catholic doctrines regarding God's relationship with us. God starts out by blessing our first parents and He continues to bless us as He calls us to His presence in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

With God's inspiration, the redactor'(s) of those first three chapters laid the foundation for what is often called the Economy of Salvation. For information, refer to both the Index and Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

The way the Catholic Church formally declares Divine Revelation as doctrine is through serious study of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ and His first followers, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, traditions connected to the liturgical practices of Catholicism, writings of saintly women and men and the declarations of previous major ecumenical Church councils. This is just the beginning.

There is more to the importance of Adam's reality. The OP asked: "Isn't that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren't real?" Personally, I prefer not to deal with heresy per se. I would expand the difficulties with a "symbolic something" by pointing to the Catholic doctrines which are connected to our first parents.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

I think that the final redactor, I think it was a compiler, had a culture very different from ours. He interpreted literally...

He didn't interpret anything. It was just written together, like the Pershitta later on.

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by grannymh

If I may repeat what I have said -- To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

Because of the Midrash, -- am I using this word correctly -- the final redactor(s) needed to preserve God's message for future generations. One of the messages given to the first man Adam is found in Genesis 3: 9-15. After Adam had broken his relationship with God, he was not abandoned by God. God calls out to Adam, asking him where he is since he left God's protective side. With the inspiration of God, the redactor chose to explain this particular situation from Adam's point of view and thus, since we are Adam's descendents, from our point of view. Genesis 3: 6-8.

Sin is our choice to move away from God, to hide from God because we recognize our own sinfulness (nakedness indicating that the relationship between Adam and God was not there). Yet, God continues to seek us.

Within the passage of Genesis 3: 9-15 is one of the main Catholic doctrines which is that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is promised as the One Who will repair the damaged relationship between God and man. It is known as the Protoevangelium, the "first gospel" in that it announces the Messiah and Redeemer.
I will agree with you that the writer of that passage would not have known the full extent of Christ's salvific mission. What the writer did know was that Adam's descendents had retained the gist or meaning of God's conversation with Adam that took place after Adam's Original Sin. At the same time that God explained the basic effects of that first sin, God promised Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ began to preach, the listeners remembered the first three chapters of Genesis and "the dots were connected." St. Paul proclaims the connection of Jesus Christ with the first man Adam in Romans, Chapter five.

Yes, some of Adam's descendents as they migrated did lose the message of God and consequently invented their own supernatural explanations of life's meanings. Nonetheless, they remained religious beings in that they had an inherent sensitivity of the supernatural. We call the "sensitivity" our spiritual soul directly created by God.

My question asked how did the redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He did it through God words to a real person. Only his explanation was not the complete explanation. It remained for God to reveal Himself slowly through the Old Testament prophets because man's mind is not equal with God. With the Incarnation, the Divine Revelation which began with Adam is completed in Jesus Christ.

Another Catholic doctrine is that God is a personal God Who calls each of us to share in His life though knowledge and love. The redactor(s) explained this by example. Notice the shift from the first verses in chapter one which describe God's actions. In verse 28, God starts talking personally to Adam and Eve. This verse does not contain all the Catholic doctrines regarding God's relationship with us. God starts out by blessing our first parents and He continues to bless us as He calls us to His presence in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

With God's inspiration, the redactor'(s) of those first three chapters laid the foundation for what is often called the Economy of Salvation. For information, refer to both the Index and Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

The way the Catholic Church formally declares Divine Revelation as doctrine is through serious study of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ and His first followers, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, traditions connected to the liturgical practices of Catholicism, writings of saintly women and men and the declarations of previous major ecumenical Church councils. This is just the beginning.

There is more to the importance of Adam's reality. The OP asked: "Isn't that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren't real?" Personally, I prefer not to deal with heresy per se. I would expand the difficulties with a "symbolic something" by pointing to the Catholic doctrines which are connected to our first parents.

Only question of "real" is que point of discussion.
Mickey Mouse gives more jobs than General Motors.
Is Mickey Mouse real?
Attention: no comparison of MM with the Bible. Just an example to prove that what is not real may be more real than what is real so the word "real" is to be taken no lightly.

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by grannymh

There is more to the importance of Adam's reality. The OP asked: "Isn't that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren't real?" Personally, I prefer not to deal with heresy per se. I would expand the difficulties with a "symbolic something" by pointing to the Catholic doctrines which are connected to our first parents.

Yet, the "reality" is that there is no dogmatic necessity that a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. Or, none that I find in the CCC, which, while not exhaustive, does contain all that is dogmatic.